What happens when an all-male organization like the Catholic clergy allows homosexuality to become institutionally entrenched? The answer is organizational and moral chaos. The priests start hitting on the altar boys. So-called "lavender mafias" emerge in certain parishes and dioceses. There are occasional, and outrageous, instances of pedophilia. Young homosexuals find the institution of the clergy a marvelous "cover," not to mention an excellent place to meet other homosexuals. And the higher-ups, at a loss for what to do, act to hush up what the Bible would have called these dens of iniquity.
If you doubt that the Catholic Church has a problem with all this, ask Cardinal Roger Mahony, who just announced that the Los Angeles diocese will pay $660 million to more than 500 victims of sex abuse. In the vast majority of cases we aren't dealing with pedophilia--an extremely rare disorder that is no more prevalent in the Catholic church than it is elsewhere in society--but rather with homosexual priests taking advantage of their authority to seduce teenage parishoners and altar boys.
Now consider what would happen to that other predominantly-male organization, the U.S. military, if it got rid of "don't ask, don't tell" and allowed open homosexual relations between soldiers. We can easily imagine all the problems, but is there an upside? The Spartans are one of the few groups in history to allow homosexuals in the military. They tried to use it to fighting advantage. The idea was that men would be more willing to die for the sake of partners to whom they had become sexually attached. So the Spartans fought as couples, with each young soldier romantically linked to an older veteran. Typically the older veteran played the "male" or dominant role and the youthful recruit the "female" or passive role in the relationship.
Putting on my Clausewitz hat, I've been thinking about how this strategy could be employed by the American military. Should the United States army set up gay platoons, where camaraderie is based not on team loyalty and male friendship but rather on sexual partnering among veteran soldiers and new recruits? I mentioned this to a friend in the armed forces and he could only forsee one benefit. He noted that if the American military gets soundly whipped in a future engagement, we could always laugh off the defeat and say, 'Well, yeah, but you only beat a bunch of gays."
Reader Comments ( Page 5 of 6)
61. Another thought:
What happens when an all-male organization like the Protestant preachers allows heterosexuality to become institutionally entrenched? The answer is organizational and moral chaos. The preachers start hitting on the female congregants. So-called "hetero mafias" emerge in certain churches and bingo parlors. There are occasional, and outrageous, instances of pedophilia. Married heterosexuals find the institution a marvelous "cover," not to mention an excellent place to meet gullible young female attendees. And the higher-ups, at a loss for what to do, act to hush up what the Bible would have called these dens of iniquity.
(shorter version: it's the promiscuity, not the homosexuality - obviously)
Some additional stats for you to consider, Dinesh:
The Journal of Pastoral Care in 1993 reported a survey of Southern Baptist pastors in which 14 percent acknowledged they had engaged in "sexual behavior inappropriate to a minister." It also reported that 70 percent had counseled at least one woman who had had intercourse with another minister.
A 1988 survey of nearly 1000 Protestant clergy by Leadership magazine found that 12 percent admitted to sexual intercourse outside of marriage, and that 23 percent had done something sexually inappropriate with someone other than their spouse. The researchers also interviewed nearly 1000 subscribers to Christianity Today who were not pastors. They found the numbers were nearly double: 45 percent indicated having done something sexually inappropriate, and 23 percent having extramarital intercourse.{6}
from here: http://www.probe.org/faith-and-sexuality/marriage--family/adultery.html
Of course, you might be able to make a great case that by encouraging celibacy, the Catholic Church is encouraging promiscuity ... but I don't think that's where you were going.
Robert S. at 4:00PM on Jul 18th 2007
62. Bravo, Dinesh D'Souza, for continuing your brilliantly devious campaign to mock and discredit American conservatism.
First you won conservatives' confidence with acute observations of academic leftism -- now you're suicide bombing the conservative establishment by publishing thoughts and views so ridiculous, so ignorant and bigoted that you (with a little help from Ann Coulter) have made the entire category of "Young Conservatives" a laughing-stock.
Gay men have served with the highest distinction in every military the world has ever known, not to mention being some of the greatest heroes of 9-11. The Israeli army (not exactly known for wimpiness) allows gays to serve openly, with no problems of any kind. So do most other Western armed forces. You seem aware of none of this.
Alexander the Great, Alcibiades, Frederick the Great -- a bunch of sissies, right? I would enjoy seeing your personal record of military achievement compared with theirs. I imagine spearing an escargot with the wrong fork at a National Review dinner is about as close as you've come to combat ...
Your silly article is an insult to the gay soldiers who've died in each of this country's wars to preserve your freedom. Your gratitude is commendable.
Keep it up, Dinesh! Every time you open your mouth, you drive another hundred intelligent, sensible people out of the great Ronald Reagan conservative coalition.
Your most recent book, blaming Americans for 9-11, reduced your intellectual credibility to the level of Rosie O"Donnell's. And recent pictures of you, including the one on this article, show you to be more of a geeky, limp-wristed weakling than any gay man I know.
Excellent, Dinesh, your ruse is working! Keep it up till you've completely destroyed conservatism in America.
Stephen Oles at 12:11PM on Jul 19th 2007
63. "The military has enough to do - wintess their efforts in Iraq and elsewhere recently -"
Oh, the efforts where they have been severely hindered thanks to a lack of Arabic translators? Those efforts?
Well if those efforts are the ones that we are referring to I would remind you that the American army had many more until they started discharging all of the gay ones.
"without meddling from social experimenters promoting nonsense like gays in the military."
Nonsense? They are there already.
And it is hardly an experiment, in my country (Britain) we have had gays for a few years now and nothing but good has come of it.
"At the very least, it seems meddlers should save these sorts of experiments for more peaceful times, when our fighting men and women are not so busy."
Busy trying to learn Arabic thanks to so many of the people who could speak it getting fired I presume...
James at 2:47AM on Jul 19th 2007
64. Putting on my Clausewitz hat, I've been thinking about how this strategy could be employed by the American military. Should the United States army set up neocon platoons, where camaraderie is based not on team loyalty and male friendship but rather on a shared ideology? If the American military gets soundly whipped in a future engagement, we could always laugh off the defeat and say, 'Well, yeah, but you only beat a bunch of chickenhawk neocons'
Fred Derfman at 1:26PM on Jul 19th 2007
65. IT'S TIME THAT AOL DROPS MR S'SOUZA AND HIS HATEFILLED RHETORIC, as it violates AOL's own TERMS OF SERVICE #3
victimizes, harasses, degrades, or intimidates an individual or group of individuals on the basis of religion, gender, sexual orientation, race, ethnicity, age, or disability;
CONTACT AOL NOW AND DEMAND THAT IT FOLLOW ITS OWN TERMS OF SERVICE AND QUIT COMMERCIALIZING HATE!
Jim at 1:28PM on Jul 19th 2007
66. I have yet to see any rational intelligent comments from the left about this subject.
All one hears is name-calling and cries to remove D'Souza and his blog because leftists cannot bear to read it.
To those on the left, or those who think we should have openly gay priests and/or openly gay soldiers in our military, explain in a rational way your reasoning.
Thanks -
For the record, awhile back I posted my thoughts regarding this:
-------------
I know many people - protestants especially - are convinced the problem of the Roman Church is that our priests must forego a wife and family and take a vow of celibacy, but I do not think that is the main cause of the recent scandal. Part of what drives the Roman Catholic preference for celibate clery is the notion that if a priest is married, his attention and efforts are of necessity divided between his wife and his family, and God.
I think it is better if priests remain single and celibate. That way they can devote all of their effort and attention to God's work. But this is just my opinon. I do understand the Eastern (Greek) Catholics allow priests to marry and I understand the Pope can change this rule. It is not Church dogma or a matter of faith. It is a man-made rule, nothing more, nothing less.
For the foreseeable future however, since Roman priests take a vow of obedience, and since Rome also mandates a vow of celibacy, it seems Roman Catholic priests will continue to remain single and take a vow of celibacy. All candidates for the Roman priesthood understand this. It is not a secret.
Whether the practice of priests taking a vow of celibacy played a role in this scandal is a good subject for debate; certainly Rome is studying the matter.
I do think it a good idea that Roman Catholic seminaries are now being more careful in screening candidates for the their suitability for the priesthood.
Obviously it is better if candidates to the Roman Catholic priesthood are normal heterosexual men who, while they would have liked to have taken a wife and become family men, actively decide to make the sacrifice and give up family life in order to devote themselves fully to God's service as a Roman Catholic priest. A homoseual man cannot make such a sacrifice because, due to his orientation, he does not have the same desire to take a wife and raise a family.
Apparently during the late 60's and 70's, when coincidentally, most of the priests who are involved in the child molestation scandal were in seminary, there was a general push (by liberals) to allow or at least consider experimenting with, the idea of letting admitted homosexuals become preists. Nowadays of course, many liberals (the same ones maybe?) are calling for us to do away with the Church entirely. Indeed it seems some of them would like nothing less than to use this scandal and how it was handled (admittedly it was handled very poorly) to justify throwing the entire Roman Church on the trash heap of history. Thankfully that of course will not happen.
In the end, the social experiment of allowing admitted gay men to become Roman clergy has been a collossal failure, and the Roman Catholic Church has learned important lessons, not only about the suitablity of gay clergy, but also about the dangers of trying to hide problems like this. Interestingly enough, the Episcopalians are just now beginning to perform the same experiment and in time, will likely learn similar lessons.
It is too bad they (the Episcopalians) do not just look at the Roman Catholic experience and learn from it.
None of this means homosexuals are to be outcast or pariahs; they can and should be part of the Church. Indeed, they bear a heavy cross that few understand; all the more reason to cling to God. As with the rest of us, who bear different crosses and have different but no less serious flaws, homosexuals should actively seek God's help and work on their faults and try to seek the truth, and try to serve God as best they can, but obviously - as this horrible episode has demonstrated - it is probably better if they do not enter the priesthood. There are plenty of groups for the laiety they can join and be active in the Church.
Ken Berg at 1:35PM on Jul 19th 2007
67. "Ken Berg", STOP reposting the same post. It is just as ineffective and unconvincing the 4th time as it was the 1st.
This blog comment string has been FULL of "intelligent arguments" from the "left" (the lazy conservative's way of labelling any dissenting argument that is different from their own).
#1: Gays already serve in the military. They just don't do it openly.
#2: Letting women in the military didn't create any instances of soldiers neglecting their duties in order to "save" a heterosexual lover in trouble.
#3: Other powerful military countries, including Israel and Britain (who by many standards are actually BETTER than the United States military soldier-to-soldier) already allow gays in their militaries.
What is the logic of making a "coalition" between the Godly, hetero-sexual only American military with effeminate, f*g loving foreign militaries? Either it's bad all around, or it's not a problem.
The shortcomings and the psychoses of the Catholic Church itself is more to blame for the sex scandals in the church than anything "per se" about homosexuality. As someone posted before me but which you have conveniently failed to address --- if there were ALTAR GIRLS, then you would undoubtedly have seen frustrated, repressed priests praying on vulnerable girls. After all, when I was 13 I knew a girl of the same age who had sex with her male teacher. I'm sure that such is compelling evidence that heterosexual males should NOT be allowed to teach children in our schools, right?
Get real. Get over your obsession with boys kissing boys, and deal with the crises within your own faith.
TriMT7 at 2:31PM on Jul 19th 2007
68. Per TriMt7 in post 64. "Ken Berg", STOP reposting the same post. It is just as ineffective and unconvincing the 4th time as it was the 1st."
KB - I was simply re-stating my thoguhts on the issue at hand for those who might not have read all five pages (over 60 postsings).
T7 - This blog comment string has been FULL of "intelligent arguments" from the "left" (the lazy conservative's way of labelling any dissenting argument that is different from their own).
KB - Really? I did not see that many.
T7 - #1: Gays already serve in the military. They just don't do it openly.
KB - On this we agree. The point is obvious.
#2: Letting women in the military didn't create any instances of soldiers neglecting their duties in order to "save" a heterosexual lover in trouble.
KB - It is true that few male soldiers neglected their duties in order to "save" a heterosexual lover in trouble, but I do not see you point here. Please explain further.
T7 - #3: Other powerful military countries, including Israel and Britain (who by many standards are actually BETTER than the United States military soldier-to-soldier) already allow gays in their militaries.
KB - It is true that other nations allow openly gay soldiers in their armies, but I do not understand your statement about other powerful countries whose soldiers are actually better on a soldier-to-soldier basis. Please elaborate.
T7 - What is the logic of making a "coalition" between the Godly, hetero-sexual only American military with effeminate, f*g loving foreign militaries? Either it's bad all around, or it's not a problem.
KB - I agree that it is not a problem for us to have allainces and military cooperation with nations who allow gays in their military, but I do not like the manner of your statement about other miltaries being effeminate and fag-loving. There is no reason to speak in such a crude fashion.
T7 - The shortcomings and the psychoses of the Catholic Church itself is more to blame for the sex scandals in the church than anything "per se" about homosexuality.
KB - The Catholic church is looking into the reasons behind the scandal, and is doing some serious self-examination. Your statement just sounds like Catholic bashing, or a firm anti-Catholic bias.
T7 - As someone posted before me but which you have conveniently failed to address --- if there were ALTAR GIRLS, then you would undoubtedly have seen frustrated, repressed priests praying on vulnerable girls.
KB - How can you say that? It is ludicrous. Your statement of "if there had been altar girls back then..." is like saying that if your great-grandmother had wheels, she would have been a bus. In this usage, your "If" does not mean much.
T7 - After all, when I was 13 I knew a girl of the same age who had sex with her male teacher. I'm sure that such is compelling evidence that heterosexual males should NOT be allowed to teach children in our schools, right?
KB - How? I truly am not following your train of thought here.
T7 - Get real. Get over your obsession with boys kissing boys, and deal with the crises within your own faith.
KB - The Catholic church is doing just that. We are currently trying to deal with the crisis within our church. And folks are not obcessed with "boys kissing boys" as you put it. There is a definite difference between pedophilia and a man molesting a teenage boy or young man.
While some of the cases involved women and girls, and a involved pedophilia (young children), the vast MAJORITY of the recent Roman Catholic church sex scandal cases involved deviant priests who had sexually abused teenage boys and/or young men who were in seminary.
To repeat my view on this matter;
I do think it a good idea that Roman Catholic seminaries are now being more careful in screening candidates for the their suitability for the priesthood.
Obviously it is better if candidates to the Roman Catholic priesthood are normal heterosexual men who, while they would have liked to have taken a wife and become family men, actively decide to make the sacrifice and give up family life in order to devote themselves fully to God's service as a Roman Catholic priest. A homosexual man cannot make such a sacrifice because, due to his orientation, he does not have the same desire to take a wife and raise a family.
Apparently during the late 60's and 70's, when coincidentally, most of the priests who are involved in the child molestation scandal were in seminary, there was a general push (by liberals) to allow or at least consider experimenting with, the idea of letting admitted homosexuals become priests. Nowadays of course, many liberals (the same ones maybe?) are calling for us to do away with the Church. Indeed it seems some of them would like nothing less than to use this scandal and how it was handled (admittedly it was handled very poorly) to justify throwing the entire Roman Church on the trash heap of history. Thankfully that of course will not happen.
In the end, the social experiment of allowing admitted gay men to become Roman clergy has been a collossal failure, and the Roman Catholic Church has learned important lessons, not only about the suitablity of gay clergy, but also about the dangers of trying to hide problems like this.
Ken Berg at 5:04PM on Jul 19th 2007
69. Something seems wrong here...by lifting "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" suddenly homosexuality is institutionally entrenched in the military? Suddenly it's chaos? We have to go from kicking openly gay service people out of the military to the other extreme, an ancient Spartan model of militarily dictated homosexual pairings? Hmmm...I'm not buying it. My father served in the Army and my brother in the Marines, and they both told me stories of knowing gay service people, men and women, and the reaction among their peers at the time was hardly chaos. By lifting the ban the military isn't going to be overrun by gay people; there may be a few more who join up, but they're never going to be the majority, just as they aren't the majority in the rest of the population, and never will be. This is ridiculous hysteria and hypocrisy and should be done away with forthwith.
If you want to focus on a genuine problem with the military, you should write about the growing number of gang members and white supremists who continue these affiliations while serving.
bribaby at 3:20AM on Jul 20th 2007
70. these are nothing but intellectual arguments about why there are gay people. gay men are queer, they're strange. this is why they're attracted to their own image. everybody is way off base. work with anybody who's gay and eventually they'll drop the dime on you and you will hear the word, queer.
lay at 3:57AM on Jul 20th 2007
71. I think it's time that you get some therapy to figure outwhy you are so intrigued with homosexuality. You are more obsessed with it than most homosexuals and your already twisted mind seems to have such a demented view of human nature...You really have some sexual issues that you need to deal with--kind of like Ted Haggard (OH, YEAH!!! He's 100% straight now!)...
hf2hvit@aol.com at 6:44PM on Jul 20th 2007
72. There certainly is a distiction between pedophile and homosexual. I have always wondered if there are so many gay priests as the "cause" of sexual molestation, why would they not just have adult relationships with each other? Seems it would be quite easy and safe in the rectories where they live together. It is pedophiles who prey on children.
Beevo at 11:43AM on Jul 22nd 2007
73. Why do we keep reading this jerk? Must be the same reason we just have to look at car wrecks.
I wonder how much AOL pays a person to have asinine opinions? I need some extra cash and I have plenty of crazy ideas. Ahh but alas I try to be funny when I talk crazy.
DD no one takes you seriously, not even your mother could believe your opinions.
Mackie at 1:57PM on Jul 22nd 2007
74. Military personel should be the ones to decide if they want openly gays in their ranks. Its disgusting to think that someone who isn't in the military, should decide if military personel should have to serve along side with openly gay people. How long before high ranking gays start pressuring people for sexual favors in order to be promoted or given easy assignments? Let the people who will be doing the work decide if they want gays with them.
Chuck at 7:51PM on Jul 22nd 2007
75. I love how Jews/Rabbis like Kaye and Shapiro who raped boys are never mentioned - only anti-Catholic comments; never negativity about Jews who rape or molest Children? It is part of an anti-Catholic pro-Jewish agenda in the media and should be investigated by the FCC. Dr Laura said on CNN that the Torah and her Rabbi condemn gays as sinners per Judaism but the media suppresses that to perpetrate the lie that Jews are liberal when they really are not. Catholics are held out to be beaten and abused in the media. It is sick when Jews are hold the same sort of values and Rabbis the same pedophiliac tendencies. It proves that the Media has an agenda which serves to harm Catholicism and promote Judaism.
john at 2:22PM on Jul 23rd 2007